DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of the DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to the Income-tax Officer (TDS

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of the DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to the Income-tax Officer (TDS

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

90,20,655 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs.16,08,70,538 lacs made from GlaxoSmithKline Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio’), Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant has failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 3.1 That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

TDS under the said provision. 11.2 It is further humbly submitted that the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Learned PCIT is mechanical, arbitrary, and legally unsustainable, having been initiated without identification of any specific error or demonstration of prejudice to the interests of the Revenue, as mandated by law and as clarified by numerous binding judicial

SH. SHIV PAL CHAUDHARY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash.Shiv Pal Chaudhary, Vs. The D.C.I.T., H.No.3121, Sector 28D, Circle Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aakpc6883B (Appellant) (Respondent)

90,626/- made by- the Id. Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, regarding TDS

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

TDS on Contractor ; Rs. 13,90,000/-' : Rs.28.60.000/- Alongwith this, the assessee had submitted 3 bills of the above parties. From perusal of the bills, the following discrepancies are noted :- i) The bill from Mayank Gupta, Builders & Contractors, 9- TAGARE PARK, Delhi, is for Rs.13.90 Lacs on account of repair of Building, Raising: Partition Walls, plastering, repair of bathroom/kitchen

KAMLA RETAIL LTD., NOW KNOWN AS M/S ETHOS LTD.,,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S. Kamla Retail Ltd. Additional Cit, Range-1, बनाम Now Known As Ethos Limited, Chadigarh. Sco-88-89, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadck2345N

section 40(a)(ia) are equally attracted which provides for the allowability of expenses in the year in which the TDS has been deducted and paid. In the instant case, it is a matter of record that the assessee has paid and accounted for these expenses in the books of accounts in the financial year relevant to the impugned assessment

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income

KARNAIL SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ground no. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Us.

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 50% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 4.1 As per the AO, the income